Eikie wrote:

MatthewDB wrote:

musman9853 wrote:

there isn't any US weapons systems that could hit the target above tehran other than an sm3.

This would be a good geometry maths problem: If a ship is in the gulf, can they even see an aircraft at FL8 in Tehran? I would think it would still be below the horizon when viewed from the Persian Gulf (or Black Sea, or Gulf of Aden).

It is simpel enough

When height is in feet and distance in statute miles (1.6km), the formula is 1.22 x sqrt(height).

At 8.000 feet (flightlevel 80) the visible distance is 109 SM/175 KM.
Of course weather, visibility and such do play a role.

Minor problem of lots of high mountains between the Gulf and THR.

michi wrote:

enilria wrote:

Would they have gotten a TCAS or other type of alert about a missile? Or would they have known their transponder was being messed with? Either would have led to emergency procedures.

No missile warning in civil aircraft.

Transponder failure would not have led to emergency procedures. Transponder failures are the starting point of a nice conversation with ATC. Eg.: They tend to ask if the transponder is switched on.

As I have experienced GPS spoofing by myself flying in various regions of the world I can assure you that this is almost a no brainer for the pilots. Definitely nothing triggering emergency procedures or flying back to an airport without communicating that turn back to ATC.

But we don't have any track data suggesting it was a turn back to the airport. Could you create a map showing the plot line from ADS-B relative to the crash site? I know it is 14km from the last spot, but I don't know if it is 14km backward or straight ahead. My guess is there is an arc involved, but I don't think it is a severe arc.

Draken21fx wrote:

michi wrote:

In the times that we live you have to triple check everything.

The person behind the twitter account lives in California (if his profile and the TV news pics are to be trusted), the account was opened only recently and from a quick search I can find no trace of him on social media.

I would take it with a pinch of salt due to all the above. Someone more of an expert than me could do some further digging into it.

True. But on the other hand, would you post such a picture with your normal username etc?
First thing I thought when I saw the picture was that the person posting that picture must be very brave, stupid, fake or not traceable.

dara88 wrote:

Don't you guys think that if the plane was hit by a missile (by mistake or any other reasons), would the Iranian officials let anyone take any pictures from the crash site? Wouldn't they clear the evidence first? They are not stupid you know! I have friends who were walking and taking different photos inside the crash site without any issues for several hours!

If Iranians are so incompetent to shoot one of their own commercial planes down with a missile they are more than incompetent enough to not know how to manage the aftermath well. There's no well oiled machine here waiting to spring into action.

Probably utter panic and chaos.

Let's be honest. These aren't seasoned professionals knowledgeable in how to deal with a catastrophe like this. They are amateurs in all respects.

So don't give them credit for managing anything well after the crash

One of the big mysteries after the video came out was that the fire was much bigger than usual for an engine fire and the black boxes immediately cut out suggesting something catastrophic. So if it was overheating, such an overheating would've been catastrophic enough to cause an instantaneous cut out of the FDR and would very likely have also been big enough to be seen from a distance compared to a regular engine fire.

Another video showing the plane going down

https://twitter.com/SBayatpour/status/1214981406797029377

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Eikie wrote:

MatthewDB wrote:

This would be a good geometry maths problem: If a ship is in the gulf, can they even see an aircraft at FL8 in Tehran? I would think it would still be below the horizon when viewed from the Persian Gulf (or Black Sea, or Gulf of Aden).

It is simpel enough

When height is in feet and distance in statute miles (1.6km), the formula is 1.22 x sqrt(height).

At 8.000 feet (flightlevel 80) the visible distance is 109 SM/175 KM.
Of course weather, visibility and such do play a role.

Minor problem of lots of high mountains between the Gulf and THR.

Where is the Gulf? No such thing exists. It's called PERSIAN Gulf.

enilria wrote:

majano wrote:

enilria wrote:

Would they have gotten a TCAS or other type of alert about a missile? Or would they have known their transponder was being messed with? Either would have led to emergency procedures.

I think it is very very very unlikely the plane was not hit by a missile. The only question is *why* was it hit by a missile and I think I have a very good theory on that. To assume anything else other than a missile (motive aside) flies in the face of logic, and Occam's Razor. Frankly, in my mind the conspiracy theory is that the plane was NOT hit by a missile as that is the much less likely scenario.

I like your posts on airline operations a great deal. I think you are far better than this...

I appreciate that very much. I am someone who works a lot with statistics. You see that on this site. I know well that extreme coincidences are nearly statistically impossible. It's not unlike if AS adds a route from a Delta hub and a week later DL adds a route or two or three from SEA. People say "they had planned to do that, just a coincidence". It's not a coincidence.

It is fact that ADS-B is easily hacked. It just comes down to whether you choose to believe it is being done. The U.S. did hack an Iranian atomic plant already, so I don't think anything is off the table.

This is all fine. I was merely concerned by you stating that scenarios other than the plane being shot down are conspiracy theories.

smokeybandit wrote:

It would be nice if whomever took that photo took a wider angle one to contemporaneously place it somewhere near the crash site.

Any missile that hit the plane should have landed nowhere near where the plane eventually crashed

They should be miles away from each other

The missile won't stay with the plane until it comes down will it?

edu2703 wrote:

Reuters reporting that Western intelligence agencies see no signs Ukraine airliner was shot down, according to a Canadian security source

https://www.reuters.com/article/iran-crash-canada-intelligence/western-intelligence-agencies-see-no-signs-ukraine-airliner-was-shot-down-canadian-source-idUSL1N29D1DU?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=twitter

I’d like to see the data behind that statement. Sudden loss of all power and a flaming bundle looks like either a missile strike or a bomb.

Look at the video, the crew could NOT have had any control or even been alive to return to the field.

flybucky wrote:

flybucky wrote:

I will caution that the FR24 non-granular plots use sparse data points that are smoothed out, which can be extremely misleading because it looks very smooth, which is usually accurate for a normal flight. But for a catastrophic incident, the granular data can paint a very different picture. Hopefully FR24 will release the granular data as they often do for major incidents: https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/cate ... -incident/

FR24 has released the granular ADS-B data, which has data points every few seconds instead of 1 or 2 per minute.
https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/ukra ... om-tehran/

Everything looks pretty smooth through the last data point, then abruptly no more data.

2020-01-08 02:44:57 UTC (06:14:57 local time)
7925 ft pressure alt
275 kts ground speed
312 heading
35.49046, 50.95299 lat/long

This is interesting - once I located the actual crash site on Google Earth, it is approx. 10 miles from the end of the flightradar24 track, and as mentioned above, on a track of approx 160 degrees:

Interested wrote:

smokeybandit wrote:

It would be nice if whomever took that photo took a wider angle one to contemporaneously place it somewhere near the crash site.

Any missile that hit the plane should have landed nowhere near where the plane eventually crashed

They should be miles away from each other

The missile won't stay with the plane until it comes down will it?

The missile explodes, it pretty much disintegrates upon detonation. Some bits will be near the wreckage.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

edu2703 wrote:

Reuters reporting that Western intelligence agencies see no signs Ukraine airliner was shot down, according to a Canadian security source

https://www.reuters.com/article/iran-crash-canada-intelligence/western-intelligence-agencies-see-no-signs-ukraine-airliner-was-shot-down-canadian-source-idUSL1N29D1DU?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=twitter

I’d like to see the data behind that statement. Sudden loss of all power and a flaming bundle looks like either a missile strike or a bomb.

Look at the video, the crew could NOT have had any control or even been alive to return to the field.

The thing that doesn't add up is that new video looks like a huge mass coming down together. If it was a missile, it would not have been such a single concentrated mass.

dara88 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Eikie wrote:

It is simpel enough

When height is in feet and distance in statute miles (1.6km), the formula is 1.22 x sqrt(height).

At 8.000 feet (flightlevel 80) the visible distance is 109 SM/175 KM.
Of course weather, visibility and such do play a role.

Minor problem of lots of high mountains between the Gulf and THR.

Where is the Gulf? No such thing exists. It's called PERSIAN Gulf.

Everyone e in aviation just calls it “the Gulf” no one would ask that question unless they had an agenda.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/27/gulf-of-understanding

vfw614 wrote:

Interesting that only 2 Ukrainian passengers were on board. So apparently the route mainly caters for ethnic travel of people with Iranian heritgage living abroad as a lower cost alternative to the various legacy flag carriers serving Tehran

I had seen this route in some "bargain-finder" websites on recent years. It was not uncommon (along with Pegasus) to offer Western Europe - KBP - IKA for 200 EUR return or less. And that a few years ago when things in Iran were "improving" with the West. Now there is probably less demand.

I suspect that Canada-Iran is not that cheap in general (at least compared to the US), so this was clearly the low-cost option. The only ME3/EU carriers that serve both Canada and Iran are Austrian (if we count Air Canada flying to VIE; dunno if they connect on this route), Emirates, Lufthansa (FRA), Qatar, Turkish and Ukraine. So there is really not much choice.

A carrier like Emirates can offer YYZ-DXB-IKA but 1) YYZ-DXB is quite limited in frequencies (so no need to give tickets away; they can "choose" higher paying passengers and 2) DXB-IKA is a very large O&D market, so no need to give tickets away either. UIA on KBP-IKA was clearly not the case relying only on connecting passengers, and very likely UIA could command higher fares on something like IKA-KBP-YYZ than IKA-KBP-JFK as the US has more competition (ME3, EU3, etc.)

If anything I am surprised there were no European tourists (as it seems for instance the 3 British nationals were of Iranian origin). On the other hand, I reckon with the late news coming from Iran, fewer tourists go there. And anytime I have seen some Iran tour on travel agencies in Europe, they always fly LH/TK/QR/EK. Something like UIA is probably too "exotic" for a traditional Western European travel agency.

enilria wrote:

michi wrote:

enilria wrote:

Would they have gotten a TCAS or other type of alert about a missile? Or would they have known their transponder was being messed with? Either would have led to emergency procedures.

No missile warning in civil aircraft.

Transponder failure would not have led to emergency procedures. Transponder failures are the starting point of a nice conversation with ATC. Eg.: They tend to ask if the transponder is switched on.

As I have experienced GPS spoofing by myself flying in various regions of the world I can assure you that this is almost a no brainer for the pilots. Definitely nothing triggering emergency procedures or flying back to an airport without communicating that turn back to ATC.

But we don't have any track data suggesting it was a turn back to the airport. Could you create a map showing the plot line from ADS-B relative to the crash site? I know it is 14km from the last spot, but I don't know if it is 14km backward or straight ahead. My guess is there is an arc involved, but I don't think it is a severe arc.

See the maps just before the comment section: http://avherald.com/h?article=4d1aea51&opt=0
[as URL because img tag don't work for that images, don't ask why]
http://avherald.com/img/uia_b738_ur-psr_tehran_200108_map.jpg
http://avherald.com/img/uia_b738_ur-psr_tehran_200108_map1.jpg

The "position of the first impact" perfectly fit some last images of the crash:
source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... oeing-737/

According to CNN, U.S intelligence is looking into the crash.

sonicruiser wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

edu2703 wrote:

Reuters reporting that Western intelligence agencies see no signs Ukraine airliner was shot down, according to a Canadian security source

https://www.reuters.com/article/iran-crash-canada-intelligence/western-intelligence-agencies-see-no-signs-ukraine-airliner-was-shot-down-canadian-source-idUSL1N29D1DU?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=twitter

I’d like to see the data behind that statement. Sudden loss of all power and a flaming bundle looks like either a missile strike or a bomb.

Look at the video, the crew could NOT have had any control or even been alive to return to the field.

The thing that doesn't add up is that new video looks like a huge mass coming down together. If it was a missile, it would not have been such a single concentrated mass.

That's what I was thinking.
to me this looks like some sort of foul play more and more instead of straight up missile hit UNLESS that thing went off in close proximity of the plane and not direct impact.

enilria wrote:

But we don't have any track data suggesting it was a turn back to the airport. Could you create a map showing the plot line from ADS-B relative to the crash site? I know it is 14km from the last spot, but I don't know if it is 14km backward or straight ahead. My guess is there is an arc involved, but I don't think it is a severe arc.

Looking at the pictures of the crash site in comparison with google earth an impact heading of around 160° looks plausible.

I am not so much into drawing, but I found this:

https://www.bild.de/news/ausland/news-ausland/unfall-mysterioeser-flugzeugabsturz-im-iran-keine-ueberlebenden-67164880.bild.html

The red part is not known, just speculation. If I would have drawn this, I would have drawn the turn wider with a heading at the end of around 160°.

The SID would have been straight out. No turns before the map I linked ends.

Interested wrote:

smokeybandit wrote:

It would be nice if whomever took that photo took a wider angle one to contemporaneously place it somewhere near the crash site.

Any missile that hit the plane should have landed nowhere near where the plane eventually crashed

They should be miles away from each other

The missile won't stay with the plane until it comes down will it?

Also the fact that in flight breakup or disintegration causing loss of structural integrity, for whatever reason missile or something else, I'd expect to look more like the Columbia disaster with multiple fragments coming down separately. I only see one mass coming down in that video which is a tough sell.

Interested wrote:

smokeybandit wrote:

It would be nice if whomever took that photo took a wider angle one to contemporaneously place it somewhere near the crash site.

Any missile that hit the plane should have landed nowhere near where the plane eventually crashed

They should be miles away from each other

The missile won't stay with the plane until it comes down will it?

Well sure, but it would be at least somewhat in the vicinity even in measures in miles. Obviously expired missile heads aren't a common thing to come across on a daily basis.

PixelFlight wrote:

enilria wrote:

michi wrote:

No missile warning in civil aircraft.

Transponder failure would not have led to emergency procedures. Transponder failures are the starting point of a nice conversation with ATC. Eg.: They tend to ask if the transponder is switched on.

As I have experienced GPS spoofing by myself flying in various regions of the world I can assure you that this is almost a no brainer for the pilots. Definitely nothing triggering emergency procedures or flying back to an airport without communicating that turn back to ATC.

But we don't have any track data suggesting it was a turn back to the airport. Could you create a map showing the plot line from ADS-B relative to the crash site? I know it is 14km from the last spot, but I don't know if it is 14km backward or straight ahead. My guess is there is an arc involved, but I don't think it is a severe arc.

See the maps just before the comment section: http://avherald.com/h?article=4d1aea51&opt=0
[as URL because img tag don't work for that images, don't ask why]
http://avherald.com/img/uia_b738_ur-psr_tehran_200108_map.jpg
http://avherald.com/img/uia_b738_ur-psr_tehran_200108_map1.jpg

The "position of the first impact" perfectly fit some last images of the crash:
source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... oeing-737/

I mean I'm going off here but from this picture you can see a ditch that is similar to what the picture with the rocket was posted.

hivue wrote:

lowbank wrote:

How that’s got holes in it I do not know,

Say what? The airplane made violent impact with terrain and was completely destroyed. That might cause a hole or two.

However a close pattern of multiple holes all with similar directions of travel would indicate a blast. I have seen my fair share of vehicles that have been hit by IED’s. Very similar pattern as what an air burst (proximity detonation) would do.

Have there ever even been any accidents where uncontained engine explosions damaged an aircraft beyond recovery? I'd assume fuel tank pucture could result in a fire but seems like the plane was uncontrollable afterward as well.

Assuming this was a catastrophic accident if the evidence eventually leads to that.

Reddevil556 wrote:

However a close pattern of multiple holes all with similar directions of travel would indicate a blast. I have seen my fair share of vehicles that have been hit by IED’s. Very similar pattern as what an air burst (proximity detonation) would do.

An engine explosion intense enough to instantaneously cause catastrophic damage to the entire airframe may cause shrapnel damage equal or worse than a missile but I could be wrong so take it with a grain of salt.

Reddevil556 wrote:

However a close pattern of multiple holes all with similar directions of travel would indicate a blast. I have seen my fair share of vehicles that have been hit by IED’s. Very similar pattern as what an air burst (proximity detonation) would do.

After a quick search it looks like that a SA-15 uses a warhead with a CR-Warhead (Continous Rod Warhead). This warhead does not produce shrapnel but a "ring of steel" cutting through the target.

sonicruiser wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

edu2703 wrote:

Reuters reporting that Western intelligence agencies see no signs Ukraine airliner was shot down, according to a Canadian security source

https://www.reuters.com/article/iran-crash-canada-intelligence/western-intelligence-agencies-see-no-signs-ukraine-airliner-was-shot-down-canadian-source-idUSL1N29D1DU?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=twitter

I’d like to see the data behind that statement. Sudden loss of all power and a flaming bundle looks like either a missile strike or a bomb.

Look at the video, the crew could NOT have had any control or even been alive to return to the field.

The thing that doesn't add up is that new video looks like a huge mass coming down together. If it was a missile, it would not have been such a single concentrated mass.

MH17 came down largely in a large piece minus biz class section but broke up in the air due to forces. MetroJet fell in one piece minus the tail section all the way to the ground. I believe the smaller flash before main impact is the aircraft breaking up.

sonicruiser wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

edu2703 wrote:

Reuters reporting that Western intelligence agencies see no signs Ukraine airliner was shot down, according to a Canadian security source

https://www.reuters.com/article/iran-crash-canada-intelligence/western-intelligence-agencies-see-no-signs-ukraine-airliner-was-shot-down-canadian-source-idUSL1N29D1DU?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=twitter

I’d like to see the data behind that statement. Sudden loss of all power and a flaming bundle looks like either a missile strike or a bomb.

Look at the video, the crew could NOT have had any control or even been alive to return to the field.

The thing that doesn't add up is that new video looks like a huge mass coming down together. If it was a missile, it would not have been such a single concentrated mass.

Depending on warhead size, the target doesn’t disintegrate. I’ve been in a head-on mid-air and the wreckage of both planes were concentrated in a small area, say an acre or two.

sonicruiser wrote:

Reddevil556 wrote:

However a close pattern of multiple holes all with similar directions of travel would indicate a blast. I have seen my fair share of vehicles that have been hit by IED’s. Very similar pattern as what an air burst (proximity detonation) would do.

An engine explosion intense enough to instantaneously cause catastrophic damage to the entire airframe may cause shrapnel damage equal or worse than a missile but I could be wrong so take it with a grain of salt.

It would depend on the amount of surface area with entrance holes. Exploding engine debris would most likely be limited to the center of the fuselage. Entrance holes on let’s say the vertical stabilizer would be nearly impossible unless at extreme angles.

michi wrote:

After a quick search it looks like that a SA-15 uses a warhead with a CR-Warhead (Continous Rod Warhead). This warhead does not produce shrapnel but a "ring of steel" cutting through the target.

How does that actually work? What kind of damage marks would be visible from a ring of steel?

smokeybandit wrote:

edu2703 wrote:

Reuters reporting that Western intelligence agencies see no signs Ukraine airliner was shot down, according to a Canadian security source

https://www.reuters.com/article/iran-crash-canada-intelligence/western-intelligence-agencies-see-no-signs-ukraine-airliner-was-shot-down-canadian-source-idUSL1N29D1DU?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=twitter

If this ends up just being an accident, it has to go down as one of the most zany coincidences in aviation history. An airliner bursts into flames over a missile launch site mere hours after missiles were launched.

I think so too, if this is a true accident it is one of the weirdest ever. Missiles where fired at US bases and a mere hours later an American built plane flew over de launch-site and crashed and because of this US NTSB-agents will be involved in the incident, and maybe even visit the site. You can't think this up.

Also, a 737 should be capable of landing with just one engine, even if it was an un-contained failure (SWA 1380). So what went so dramatically wrong that one of the most popular planes in the sky went down so quick, after just 3 years of service? If the plane truly went down due to mechanical problems Boeing has another problem on it hands.

sevenair wrote:

sonicruiser wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I’d like to see the data behind that statement. Sudden loss of all power and a flaming bundle looks like either a missile strike or a bomb.

Look at the video, the crew could NOT have had any control or even been alive to return to the field.

The thing that doesn't add up is that new video looks like a huge mass coming down together. If it was a missile, it would not have been such a single concentrated mass.

MH17 came down largely in a large piece minus biz class section but broke up in the air due to forces. MetroJet fell in one piece minus the tail section all the way to the ground. I believe the smaller flash before main impact is the aircraft breaking up.

From my recollection, the Metrojet disaster was not caused by a missile. It was a bomb.

Can a missile even cause a fire that intense? Somehow I don't remember the MH17 fire in its video being that bright but that could also be because it was during daylight IIRC. Fire from overheating feels like it would be brighter than fire from a missile.

sonicruiser wrote:

If it really was a technical fault, now it makes sense why Iran could so quickly claim that it was. Because they would've known they didn't shoot it.

They wouldn't have known if a terrorist or US had shot it or if a bomb had exploded though would they?

In fact at this stage they would be clueless as to the cause and would leave all options open

So I'm thinking the opposite to you. Immediately saying technical fault is suspicious and would be what they would say if they did know they shot it but wanted to cover that up

Morvious wrote:

Draken21fx wrote:

michi wrote:

In the times that we live you have to triple check everything.

The person behind the twitter account lives in California (if his profile and the TV news pics are to be trusted), the account was opened only recently and from a quick search I can find no trace of him on social media.

I would take it with a pinch of salt due to all the above. Someone more of an expert than me could do some further digging into it.

True. But on the other hand, would you post such a picture with your normal username etc?
First thing I thought when I saw the picture was that the person posting that picture must be very brave, stupid, fake or not traceable.

Agreed, but then again would you trust a person who is using a fake picture on their profile, non reverse traceable, who opened the profile only a few months ago and posts only anti Iranian gov posts to serve you a legit non metadata tagged picture of a missile part in a ditch in an unidentifiable location?

Again not an expert in any of the fields that are discussed in the topic but I do want evidence before I draw conclusions and that goes for the accident/incident in question as well, and any "proof" anyone is posting.

sonicruiser wrote:

Interested wrote:

smokeybandit wrote:

It would be nice if whomever took that photo took a wider angle one to contemporaneously place it somewhere near the crash site.

Any missile that hit the plane should have landed nowhere near where the plane eventually crashed

They should be miles away from each other

The missile won't stay with the plane until it comes down will it?

Also the fact that in flight breakup or disintegration causing loss of structural integrity, for whatever reason missile or something else, I'd expect to look more like the Columbia disaster with multiple fragments coming down separately. I only see one mass coming down in that video which is a tough sell.

But at night and that distance, a bright flash would drown out the smaller bits of fire around it. That Columbia photo is filtered and zoomed in. There wasn't a large enough distance for the pieces to fall at much of a different rate of speed so you could see them individually.

However, I would expect to see some trailing pieces that "flared" off.

Kayenta wrote:

Have there ever even been any accidents where uncontained engine explosions damaged an aircraft beyond recovery? I'd assume fuel tank pucture could result in a fire but seems like the plane was uncontrollable afterward as well.

Assuming this was a catastrophic accident if the evidence eventually leads to that.

I don't recall engine overheating as having ever been the cause of any 737 crash so this would be the first of its kind if true.

majano wrote:

enilria wrote:

majano wrote:

I like your posts on airline operations a great deal. I think you are far better than this...

I appreciate that very much. I am someone who works a lot with statistics. You see that on this site. I know well that extreme coincidences are nearly statistically impossible. It's not unlike if AS adds a route from a Delta hub and a week later DL adds a route or two or three from SEA. People say "they had planned to do that, just a coincidence". It's not a coincidence.

It is fact that ADS-B is easily hacked. It just comes down to whether you choose to believe it is being done. The U.S. did hack an Iranian atomic plant already, so I don't think anything is off the table.

This is all fine. I was merely concerned by you stating that scenarios other than the plane being shot down are conspiracy theories.

Got it.

I'm just saying given the surrounding events, the likelihood is massively greater that the plane was shotdown rather than a mechanical event. That's just based on statistics. The rarity of mechanical failure compared with the certainty that missiles were flying around and the U.S. had given an overflight warning tells me that a mechanical event is the less likely outcome. Generally, while it is not the strict definition, people refer to the less likely story as a "conspiracy theory". In this case I think mechanical failure is the less likely theory being promulgated by the Iranians trying to cover that they shot down an airliner. Of course, I also post that I think it is likely that they were hacked/hoodwinked into believing it was an enemy.

Guys, are you sure about the SA-15? If indeed that warhead is designed to cut the target in half, it doesn't really fit with what we are seeing here. Instead the French Crotale (or a copy of it) would fit the profile, it's smaller in size (would fit the nosecone in the picture better - IF the picture would happen to be legit), and releases High-Energy particles based on a infra-red proximity sensor. Deadly radius on explosion close to 10 meters. (no link, remember this from my time in the AA-forces)

And the question how could this possibly happen, purely speculating, could be as simple as;

- Officer 1: "we are launching an airstrike on US bases in Iraq, get ready for a counter-attack"
- Officer 2: "sure thing, we'll be ready. Will there be any friendly targets in the air in the next hours?"
- Officer 1: "I wouldn't think so, I'm sure they'll shut down the airspace around that time, should be standard protocol"
- Officer 2 to Operator A: "get ready for a US counter-attack, they are shutting down the airspace, consider any target in the air potentially hostile"
- Operator A sees a low-flying target approaching, 1+1 = hit it.

It doesn't take more than a slightly sloppy communication chain. A bit like Tenerife. One small "oops" for the controller, one giant...

dara88 wrote:

https://www.isna.ir/photo/98101813851/%D8%B3%D9%82%D9%88%D8%B7-%D9%87%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%BE%DB%8C%D9%85%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D9%88%DA%A9%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C%D9%86%DB%8C#59

Those photos really puts the amount of damage and loss of life into perspective. Quite gut wrenching to see all the body bags and evidence of human remains.

PixelFlight wrote:

MatthewDB wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

If Iran has nothing to hide, why not send the CVR and FDR to a neutral party?

Who would that be? It would have to be someone who is trusted by Iran, Ukraine, Canada, USA and France. That's a pretty tall task! Given the hostilities between Ukraine and Russia, that certainly isn't Russia.
Does Switzerland do crash investigations?

Yes, Switzerland do crash investigations https://www.sust.admin.ch/en/stsb-homepage/ but only inside Switzerland as far as I know.
Switzerland represents the interests of the United States in the Iranian capital Tehran. Some diplomatic messages are known to pass between USA and Iran via Switzerland, notably this last one: "Swiss deliver U.S. message to Iran over Soleimani killing" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq ... SKBN1Z21AC

Yes, that arraignment is what led me to suggest Switzerland. As far as I can tell, both sides have trust in Switzerland acting as a neutral middleman.

majano wrote:

sevenair wrote:

sonicruiser wrote:

The thing that doesn't add up is that new video looks like a huge mass coming down together. If it was a missile, it would not have been such a single concentrated mass.

MH17 came down largely in a large piece minus biz class section but broke up in the air due to forces. MetroJet fell in one piece minus the tail section all the way to the ground. I believe the smaller flash before main impact is the aircraft breaking up.

From my recollection, the Metrojet disaster was not caused by a missile. It was a bomb.

I'm well aware of that thanks. My previous post on the MetroJet disaster way up this threat proves that I already knew it was a bomb.

I'm saying that planes can be subject to internal or external explosive forces causing an initial break up then falling from height in one large piece. The point I was making was clear and obvious - but that's before you factor in a.net point scoring and pedantry.

Carlos01 wrote:

Guys, are you sure about the SA-15? If indeed that warhead is designed to cut the target in half, it doesn't really fit with what we are seeing here. Instead the French Crotale (or a copy of it) would fit the profile, it's smaller in size (would fit the nosecone in the picture better - IF the picture would happen to be legit), and releases High-Energy particles based on a infra-red proximity sensor. Deadly radius on explosion close to 10 meters. (no link, remember this from my time in the AA-forces)

And the question how could this possibly happen, purely speculating, could be as simple as;

- Officer 1: "we are launching an airstrike on US bases in Iraq, get ready for a counter-attack"
- Officer 2: "sure thing, we'll be ready. Will there be any friendly targets in the air in the next hours?"
- Officer 1: "I wouldn't think so, I'm sure they'll shut down the airspace around that time, should be standard protocol"
- Officer 2 to Operator A: "get ready for a US counter-attack, they are shutting down the airspace, consider any target in the air potentially hostile"
- Operator A sees a low-flying target approaching, 1+1 = hit it.

It doesn't take more than a slightly sloppy communication chain. A bit like Tenerife. One small "oops" for the controller, one giant...

6 planes took off after the strike without incident before PS752. This is a big mystery.

PixelPilot wrote:

PixelFlight wrote:

enilria wrote:

But we don't have any track data suggesting it was a turn back to the airport. Could you create a map showing the plot line from ADS-B relative to the crash site? I know it is 14km from the last spot, but I don't know if it is 14km backward or straight ahead. My guess is there is an arc involved, but I don't think it is a severe arc.

See the maps just before the comment section: http://avherald.com/h?article=4d1aea51&opt=0
[as URL because img tag don't work for that images, don't ask why]
http://avherald.com/img/uia_b738_ur-psr_tehran_200108_map.jpg
http://avherald.com/img/uia_b738_ur-psr_tehran_200108_map1.jpg

The "position of the first impact" perfectly fit some last images of the crash:
source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... oeing-737/

I mean I'm going off here but from this picture you can see a ditch that is similar to what the picture with the rocket was posted.

Unlikely to be in the area of the picture. If this is really a head missile that shot the aircraft, the angle of the launch relative to the trajectory as the last ADS-B position could be anything. A such missile head is highly unlikely to be stuck into the aircraft frame up to the aircraft frame ground impact. The missile head most probably fell some kilometers away. And there are probably a large number of similar ditches in that region.

Until there are more evidences about that missile head picture, we have to be careful to not rule out that this could be a unrelated picture. The fact that the picture was never identified on the internet before could be a sign that it's a very recent one, or a hidden one. The EXIF tags could have been helpful, but not released yet.

dara88 wrote:

https://www.isna.ir/photo/98101813851/%D8%B3%D9%82%D9%88%D8%B7-%D9%87%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%BE%DB%8C%D9%85%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D9%88%DA%A9%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C%D9%86%DB%8C#59

My god , RIP

sevenair wrote:

I believe the smaller flash before main impact is the aircraft breaking up.

If we assume some sort of intense engine/wing fire during the initial part of the video, my guess is the flash shortly before impact is from the wing either breaking away or tearing in such a way to let a bunch of fuel out and atomize quickly.

hongkongflyer wrote:

theaviator380 wrote:

May sound daft question but are NTSB not allowed to take part in this investigation as Boeing being American company? I mean does NTSB have legal authority to be involved in investigation?

Thanks.

no, unless the crash happened in USA or related to an USA airline.

Or unless there are American fatalities; then it is customary (and expected) to be invited. Obviously, given the heightened sensitivities, that would also be addressed from a diplomatic channel, but typically the NTSB has very finite criteria for their involvement.

Carlos01 wrote:

Guys, are you sure about the SA-15? If indeed that warhead is designed to cut the target in half, it doesn't really fit with what we are seeing here. Instead the French Crotale (or a copy of it) would fit the profile, it's smaller in size (would fit the nosecone in the picture better - IF the picture would happen to be legit), and releases High-Energy particles based on a infra-red proximity sensor. Deadly radius on explosion close to 10 meters. (no link, remember this from my time in the AA-forces)

And the question how could this possibly happen, purely speculating, could be as simple as;

- Officer 1: "we are launching an airstrike on US bases in Iraq, get ready for a counter-attack"
- Officer 2: "sure thing, we'll be ready. Will there be any friendly targets in the air in the next hours?"
- Officer 1: "I wouldn't think so, I'm sure they'll shut down the airspace around that time, should be standard protocol"
- Officer 2 to Operator A: "get ready for a US counter-attack, they are shutting down the airspace, consider any target in the air potentially hostile"
- Operator A sees a low-flying target approaching, 1+1 = hit it.

It doesn't take more than a slightly sloppy communication chain. A bit like Tenerife. One small "oops" for the controller, one giant...

It depends: We are sure its a nose from a SA-15 missile. We are however not sure that it was actually involved in this accident.

That western intelligence now seems to claim that the plane was not hit by a missile is a heavy argument against it.

Probably the worst uncontained failure we've seen in, like, ever, was the QANTAS A380, on which No. 2 blew and damaged a staggering amount of the airplane; the aircrew were deprived of control over engine No. 1 (they landed with cruise thrust set), and all manner of other stuff - but the plane flew. It was no doubt largely due to exceptional airmanship (and ADM) on the part of the QF crew (especially, Captain Richard Champion de Crispigny - what a great middle name!), but even where an engine manages to escape its containment, the vast majority of the energy is dissipated by the process of the destruction of the containment. And that's still very rare.

You just don't expect a huge number of holes in the fuselage and tail surfaces (acknowledged: we still don't have reliable imagery. and may never).

CFM (a 50-50 JV of Safran, of France, and GE) builds an outstanding engine, the most-used engine family out there now. They don't blow often, and they don't kill airplanes when they do.

We may or may not ever know the facts - but a crash like this almost requires an external effect to happen, and you'd say that no matter where or when the tragedy occurred.

Occam's razor.

dara88 wrote:

https://www.isna.ir/photo/98101813851/%D8%B3%D9%82%D9%88%D8%B7-%D9%87%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%BE%DB%8C%D9%85%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D9%88%DA%A9%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C%D9%86%DB%8C#59

These are hard to look at. RIP